Firstly, congratulations to our newly-minted lawyers and graduates of University of Northern Luzon. We honor you tonight for your success and the sacrifices that you have endured to obtain admission to the Roll of Attorneys. However, while we give you honor, it is but proper for us to remind you of one of your most important responsibilities as an Attorney: the duty of a lawyer to represent clients or causes that are unpopular and to handle cases where the reaction of the community may be adverse to the lawyer.

It bears repeating that the practice of law is a privilege that is granted to a select few in the Philippines. Out of ten bar examinees, only two or three are admitted to the bar. In order to insure that the practice of law takes on the nature of a profession instead of a mere business, this privilege is counterbalanced with duties of lawyers to the court and to his client.

In regard the lawyer’s duties to represent unpopular clients and causes, under Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court (Also Rule 14.01 of the Canons of Legal Ethics), it is stated that “(i)n defense of a person accused of a crime, by all fair and honorable means, regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to present every defense that the law permits, to the end that no person may be deprived of life or liberty, but by due process of law.”

The right to counsel is regarded as so fundamental that it has been enshrined as a constitutional right and this right is given greater relevance when the person seeking counsel is deemed unpopular or the cause is contrary to current public opinion.

Let me give this discussion focus by sharing with you my own personal experience by handling to cases that is unpopular to some groups – the current Halili-Kho sex video case where I am counsel for Dr. Vicki Belo and the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) petition that I filed before the Supreme Court in 2008.

In regard the Halili-Kho case, my decision to handle the defense of Dr. Belo criticized by both friends and foes. People who cared about me and who were concerned with my political prospects warned that handling the defense of Dr. Belo would only give me negative publicity and that intelligent voters would be turned off by my handling such a scandalous case that involved sex, drugs, infidelity, and other elements were more fit for a tele-drama. My critics happily stated that my representing Dr. Belo, in this and other cases, was a death-blow to my political ambitions and a confirmation of my lack of political savvy. Some critics added that I should not even be practicing my profession since I was the President of the University of the City of Manila (Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila).

My answer to both friends and critics was simple – I am, first and foremost, a lawyer. I understand my ethical duty to represent Dr. Belo regardless of political repercussions. In this regard, I am the opposite of a traditional politician or “trapo”. A trapo is a weathervane, a trapo has no real principle or stand on any issue, and a trapo will only support causes that will make him popular. Just last week, I received a text message that read, “You should not handle the Belo cases if you want to be a Senator.” I answered that I have an ethical duty as a lawyer to represent my client. He sent a text in reply that said, “so your choice is to be a lawyer instead of a Senator.” I answered finally that, if God is willing, I see no reason why I cannot be both. Most importantly, if I decided not to represent Dr. Belo because I gave more importance and weight to my political career than to my ethical duties, then I would not make a good Senator at all because our public officers should take their ethical and moral duties to heart.

In regard my practicing law, I obtained authority for limited practice from both the Board of Regents and the Office of the City Mayor of Manila. I did this for two reasons – firstly, because, candidly, the salary of a university president is insufficient to support my family and, secondly, I hold my being a lawyer to be so important and fundamental that I need to practice in order to stay mentally sharp and to kept abreast of the current legal trends.

As a guidance to our fledgling lawyers and to emphasize the imperative to handle unpopular causes, the comments of the IBP Committee that drafted the Code of Legal Ethics are especially relevant, “(r)egardless of his personal feelings, a lawyer should not decline representation because a client or cause is unpopular or community reaction is adverse. He should take comfort that history is replete with instances of distinguished and sacrificial services by lawyers who had represented unpopular clients and causes and who had received accolade for such services from his peers in the bar.”

In fact, personally, I do not need the accolade to feel fulfillment. I already take great comfort that I am fulfilling my duty as a lawyer, acting out my role in the dispensation of justice, and knowing from my own appreciation of the facts and the evidence, that my client, Dr. Belo, is innocent of the charges against her.

In fact, the criticism I received from the Halili-Kho case was mild compared to what I received from the MILF and the radicalized elements of the Filipino-Muslim or Moro community.

In 2008, I filed a petition before the Supreme Court questioning the MOA-AD. The Agreement would have established a presumptive state independent of the Philippine republic, which would have its own territory in Mindanao, under the political control of the MILF, and its own ancestral domains not subject to the jurisdiction of the Philippine Government. Despite my being a Moro or Filipino-Muslim, I opposed the agreement for being unconstitutional, for undermining Philippine sovereignty and territorial integrity, and for being unjust not only to non-Muslims, both Lumads and Christian, in Mindanao who would be displaced by the Agreement. Additionally, I believed the Agreement was similarly unfair to Filipino-Muslims who were not allied to the MILF, such as the MNLF and the majority of Filipino-Muslims who are opposed to the creation of a separate Moro State.

MILF leaders called me a “coward”, a “non-Muslim,” and “a former Moro.” On the MILF website I was put in the list of most hated Filipinos. I even received death threats from the MILF and their supporters. But, honestly - and I do not say this to appear brave because I am not any braver than the normal person – I did not care nor worry about the criticisms and threats. It was very clear to me that my duty as a lawyer demanded – not merely persuaded but created the imperative – that I question such an unconstitutional agreement, despite the criticisms that I knew I would obtain from some sectors of the Muslim community.

Finally, my message to the new lawyers is a simple: your privilege to practice the law shall, at times, demand that you take on clients and causes that will make you unpopular and that will garner you criticism instead of praise. Remember that long after the praise or criticism have subsided, you shall be able to carry yourself with dignity knowing that you have fulfilled your vital and primordial role as a member of the bar in the dispensation of justice. Take heart that by your actions you are privileged to be, above all, the genuine article – a real lawyer.